Brahmacharya, BrahamaNirvanaam and Happiness

[Guest guest]

Namastte Sri Frederico:

 

I feel compelled to provide some comments regarding your

interpretation of "Ramana's interpretation." First we do need to

recognize that Self-realized Ramana, was a Brahmachari according to

Sankara's (also Vedic) understanding of Brahmacharyam. There is

connection between BrahmaNirvanam and Brahmacharyam and it is fully

explained in verse 24 of Bhagavad Gita chapterr 5:

 

Gita Chapter 5 Verse 24

 

yo.antahsukho.antaraaraamastatha antarjyotireva yah .

sa yogii brahmanirvaaNaM brahmabhuuto.adhigachchhati

 

One who finds happiness with the Self, who rejoices the Self within,

and who is illuminated by the Self-knowledge; such a yogi becomes one

with Brahman and attains supreme nirvana.

 

Here the word `Antah' denotes God, who indwells or permeates the

whole universe, and not the inner sense. `Antahsukhah' (feeling

happiness in the presence of God who dwells within) refers to the

yogi who finds no joy in worldly pleasures but finds joy in God, the

embodiment of supreme bliss. Such a yogi does not even recognize the

existence of external enjoyments and renounces them and takes delight

in God. The yogi fully absorbed with the God who dwells in all his

thoughts focused on Him (meditation).

 

 

The word `Antararamh'(one who rejoices within) refers to the yogi

whose happiness is within and consequently such a yogi doesn't go

outwardly to find `joy.'

 

`Antarjyotih' (illuminated within) is a reference to a yogi who

recognizes that a phenomenal object has no separate reality apart

from God.

 

In the same verse the employment of three three adjectives

`Antahsukhah', `Antararamah' and `Antarjyotih' is to indicate

forcefully that the yogi ceases to have any connection with this

phenomenal world, inasmuch as he/she finds joy, gratification and

light in God alone.

 

The word `Brahmabhutah' indicates the final stage of a Sankhyayogi.

The practicant following the path of Knowledge renounces egoism, the

sense of possession and all evil propensities like lust and anger,

and incessantly goes on meditating upon God as his self. In this way

when the yogi becomes one with Him the yogi becomes inseparable from

God and there will be no more any separate identity (ego).

`Brahmabhutah' constitutes the final stage or culmination of yoga

Sadhana.

 

The term `Brahmanirvanam' denotes God, who is all peace, the

embodiment of Sat, chit and anandam (truth, wisdom and bliss),

Attaining `Brahmanirvana' implies God-realization or Self-

realization. The Sruti also says: "Becoming one with the Absolute;

he realizes the Absolute." * (Brh. up., IV. iv.6)

 

This state of God-Realization is variously termed as the attainment

of Eternal peace, the attainment of Eternal Bliss, the attainment of

the Absolute, the attainment of Liberation and the attainment of the

supreme Goal.

 

A careful reading of the above will illustrate the most significant

point that when the Yogi finds happiness and comforts in the presence

of God, for such a yogi to look for joy elsewhere becomes a

contradiction to BrahmaNirvanam. Dr Radhakrishnan quotes from

Brother Lawrence (from the book,

"Practice of the Presence of God") "I know, that, for the right

practice of it, the heart must be empty of all else; because God

wills

to possess the heart alone; and as He cannot possess it alone unless

it is empty of all else, so He cannot work init what He would unless

be left vacant for Him."

 

The bottom line message of Vedanta is the following: The infinity

(Brahman) can only fill in our mind when it is completely empty

without any external thoughts! BrahmaNirvanam explains the entire

Vedanta in a nutshell.

 

Warmest regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

advaitin, "Frederico Sigaud Gonzales"

<fsg@s...> wrote:

> Hello Asridhar19 ,

>

> Ramana Maharshi often spoke about this issue.

> He told people that ´Brahmacharya´ means ´to abide in

Brahman´ and that means ´to live in the Self (Atman).´ He spoke about

the wrong interpretation coming to existence because people, in their

ignorance, started to think that he who lives with Brahman constantly

cannot have sexual relations.

[Guest guest]

-

Frederico Sigaud Gonzales

advaitin

Saturday, March 06, 2004 6:32 PM

Fw: Brahmacharya, BrahamaNirvanaam and Happiness

 

 

 

-

Frederico Sigaud Gonzales

advaitin

Saturday, March 06, 2004 6:02 PM

Re: Brahmacharya, BrahamaNirvanaam and Happiness

 

 

Namaste Ram Chandram,

 

Thank you for your general dive into Vedanta philosophy. May I make some

comments.

As to the fact that Sri Ramana was a Brahmachary in the sense of abstaining

from any outward or sense pleasure, it is correct as far as my knowledge goes.

But in one of his talks to a european disciple he stated that if one was living

in Brahman and rejoicing in Brahman, it is not a problem to have or not have any

sexual relation, simply he stated that Self-Realization brings the sexual thrust

to an end, but one may still appear to be having sexual relations in the eyes of

Unrealized beholders. In fact, as Sri Ramana stated, there is no action or

inaction for one immersed in Samadhi, so whatever he does/does not is only

perceived as such by Unrealized beings. Now, I want to let clear that I am not

nearly as educated in Brahmanic and Vedantin philosophy as most people who write

on this Forum but I take spirituality seriously and in the course of my own

experiences I have found that the Advaitins were completely right, in

discovering facts which are real and will ever be real.

One of my early explorations into spirituality was bringing to my mind the

clear certainty that all phenomena are like mirages, illusions. This in turn

lead me to read Advaita which states the same, using the words Maya and Brahman

to signify this basic concept of an integrated (non-dual) illusion which happens

for pure play (Lila) or enjoyment (Sukha). I am not very familiar with Sanskrit

terms and Sanskrit language although I intend to learn it in the future. So

basically my point is: apart from the Scriptures (Shruti), I am taking my own

step (not defying the Shruti but simply because I do not have access to them)

and I am saying that, if Brahman dwells in every atom, in every minute particle

of the Universe, than, for a Realized being (I am not Realized) I suppose it is

meaningless whether he has sex or not, because, in his ultimate comprehension of

reality, he has realized Unity and therefore if he has sex with a woman, he is

having sex with no other than Brahman. In the surface, in Illusion, there

appears to be an independent woman apart from Brahman, but in fact the Yogi

finds that there is no such woman, because she is simply a manifestation of

Brahman, such as all seemingly separate individuals who think they are apart

from Brahman and, like myself, do not realize that they are in fact Brahman.

This is my point, in brief.

Namaste,

Fred